[pc86]

The second point is hard to quantify. If I just give up searching for a job and live off savings or government assistance, but I would take a job if I could find one, I should probably count as unemployed even though I'm not actively searching for a job. But if I am choosing not to look because I won't take a job, I am technically unemployed by the strict definition of the word but I don't count for what most people care about when thinking about the unemployment rate.

Underemployment is already reported and is distinctly different so I don't think it's fair to say that not counting someone at Burger King who has a Master's degree as unemployed is a "flaw."

[gruez]

>If I just give up searching for a job and live off savings or government assistance, but I would take a job if I could find one, I should probably count as unemployed even though I'm not actively searching for a job.

The current definition makes sense because it's linked to an overt action that can be objectively determined. "Not looking for a job but theoretically would like a job" gets into all sorts of issues like "I want a job as a king if it landed on my lap...".

[bluGill]

The problem is how do we tell you from someone who retires early?

[9rx]

Same way we determine all the other inputs that go into the various unemployment rates? Ask.

"Marginally attached" and "discouraged workers" are already tracked and reported in U4, U5, and U6, so this is a strange hypothetical.

[miyoji]

We determine unemployment using a survey, so presumably you just ask.